Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Lüttich

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Operation Lüttich[edit]

Passed GAN on September 6; had undergone revising and expansion since then. I believe it meets the A-Class criteria. Regards, Cam (Chat) 22:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only issue is the lack of a casualty count. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of that can be explained by the gradual breakdown in German logistics throughout the course of the Normandy Campaigns. I have encountered this issue in previous article (Operation Tractable, Battle of Verrieres Ridge). I can give rough estimates for armoured casualties for German forces, as well as estimates for American casualties. However, to my knowledge, no solid figures exist. I'll take another look in my sources, for what it's worth. Regards, Cam (Chat) 03:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no further issues with this article. It is extremely well written and thoroughly covers this topic. One suggestion for further improvement is to address the casualty figures in a subsection as was done in Operation Tractable. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The assault was part of an attempt made by Adolf Hitler to eliminate the gains made by the First United States Army - Was Adolf Hitler involved himself ? could this be re phrased = attempt by German forces or attempt by the XLVII Panzer Corps to eliminate the gains.

Hitler personally ordered the counterattack. Von Kluge was mortified at the order, but proceeded anyways. Cam (Chat) 21:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comment on the casualty count but otherwise Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What makes http://montormel.evl.pl/?id=66 a reliable source to be using for much of the article?

It's the site for the Polish Memorial/Museum on Mont-Ormel ("The Mace") for the Polish 1st Armoured Division. It's for the same reasons that most museum websites are considered reliable sources. Cam (Chat) 21:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 July 1944, following six weeks of positional warfare along a stalemated front - The use of positional warfare could be explained better, I think, perhaps changing the wording to make the meaning clearer.

Doing. Cam (Chat) 21:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Allied casualties apparently Non-applicable? Skinny87 (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is to use "unknown" for casualty figures, but some editors prefer N/A. If you wish, I can easily change that. Cam (Chat) 21:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone using N/A and trying to get a G, A, or FA stamp needs to meet a wet trout. Maybe we should look into putting this into the manual of style, but IMO, N/A is a bloody disgrace and a slap across the face of the brave soldiers who died in these battles. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite my head off because another editor used it. Like I said, I prefer to use "unknown", but I'm not the only one working on this article. Cam (Chat) 05:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it appeared to be directed towards you. I meant that as a general statement. Geoff Plourde

No biggy. it's difficult to communicate accurately across the web. Cam (Chat) 21:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good. Cla68 (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~...The statement that American casaulties are unknown gave me pause. The US Army was usually fairly good at documenting its casualties in WWII. Have you looked at the sources available here and here? Many of these are official histories. Cla68 (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those actually helped me find casualty figures. I've regone over my D'Este source, and it gives some approximations as to casualties taken by American forces. I'll add them in tomorrow. Regards, Cam (Chat) 05:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the official US Army history will give a total casualty figure for several months of action which includes several actions or battles. In that case, I usually try to find casualty figures for the other battles then subtract them from the total to approximate the total for the battle in question, then explain how I did it in the footnotes. Did none of those weblinks give any information that was useful for the article at all, besides in terms of casualty figures? Cla68 (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, I was unable to glean anything from the sites. That said, I'm extremely tired at the moment, and perhaps working on a fully-rested mind will enable me to find what I'm looking for. I'll look at this again tomorrow. Regards, Cam (Chat) 06:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting very close. One more thing, some of the dates are written as "month day" and some as "day month". They need to be consistent throughout the article. Also, the new WP:MOS rule on dates is that they're not supposed to be wikilinked. Cla68 (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K. I've fixed the date issues for both consistency and wikilinks. Cam (Chat) 04:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a good book called Battle for Mortain: The 30th Infantry Division Saves the Breakout, and another one called Victory at Mortain (by Mark Reardon). I would suggest trying to find these at a local library or buying them. JonCatalán (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I FINALLY found a reference for a range of American fatalities. It's not as accurate as I'd hoped for, but it's the best I can do. Cam (Chat) 05:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Satisfied my concerns have been met, Skinny87 (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.